REMEMBERto bookmark this site so that you can
return ! Last Update
10/08/07Tourette Syndrome—Now What?
Raising awareness about the full spectrum of Tourette's disorder, with support
and accurate information based on the latest research.TSNW •
TSNowWhat •
TouretteNowWhat •
Tourette Syndrome Now What?

Tourette's
Syndrome Message Board and Blog! (An online Tourette syndrome support
group where you can meet adults, families and people with Tourette's Syndrome,
keep up with the latest research, learn how to cope with Tourette's, and post
your questions about Tourette's.)

Click on the links below for recent
updates, latest research on Tourette's, and current Tourette's
information

Before looking at a British neurology journal review of Comings' most recent
work, The Gene Bomb, here are some other comments about some of his
published work on Tourette's syndrome. Readers should be aware that David Comings
is the founder of Hope Press, from which he published his
controversial work on Tourette's syndrome, Tourette Syndrome and Human Behavior,
as well as The Gene Bomb. His second book, Search for the
Tourette Syndrome and Human Behavior Genes, was published by his vanity
press in 1996 and details the extensive problems he had with getting peer
acceptance of his work/conclusions from other recognized Tourette's experts,
the medical journals, and the Tourette Syndrome Association.

Some issues with Comings' published work on
Tourette's:

"In a remarkable series of papers by Comings and Comings in the
Journal, a number of claims are made that have profound implications for future research on Gilles de la Tourette syndrome (TS).
Their assertions fall outside of the mainstream of the very extensive TS literature that has developed over the past 2 decades. The novelty of the conclusions and the visibility of their presentation require that the papers receive thorough discussion."

followed by a discussion of methodological faults in Comings' work, and concluding with:

"He concludes that it has not escaped his attention that the reason disorders of disinhibition are so common 'is that they are (1) genetic, (2) dominant, and (3) result in disinhibition, especially of sexual activity.'
Aspects of this statement are unfounded, particularly his comment concerning sexual activity.
In the first six reports in the series, the authors present no data to demonstrate that individuals with TS are sexually disinhibited in a way that would result in increased frequency of the disorder. Specifically, they do not provide any family data to show that TS patients have larger than average family sizes.
In fact, data presented in these papers suggest that the TS patients' sexual activity is not different from that of controls.
To attach such a label to individuals who have already suffered tremendously because of their illness is at best insensitive; to do so without having any data to substantiate the claim is inexcusable.

In summary, any one of these methodological difficulties is sufficient to weaken considerably the conclusions offered by Comings and Comings. All of them together make it impossible to accept as valid any of the results presented and raise serious concerns regarding the integrity of the peer review process for these
papers."

A review of David Comings' The Gene Bomb by a British neurology journal.

The Gene Bomb: Does Higher Education and Advanced Technology Accelerate the
Selection of Genes for Learning Disorders, Addictive and Disruptive Behaviors?
By David E. Comings, M.D., Hope Press, 1996. Reprinted
with permission from the journal of Developmental Medicine & Child
Neurology, 1997, 39: 208-209, Book Reviews, by Shirley V Hodgson.

The task of reviewing this book was an extremely difficult one because the
arguments it promotes aroused such strongly antagonistic emotions in me. The
reader is warned of the book’s hysterical content by the apocalyptic cover
picture of a nuclear-bomb cloud: the ideas promoted by the author – a
geneticist who has published previously on genetic aspects of human behaviour
– are akin to the ideas of the eugenics movement in the 1920s to 1940s. These
have been extensively refuted, initially by LS Penrose and subsequently by the
body of opinion of geneticists, so that a book which reopens these issues as
though none of these discussions have taken place is not only irrational but
gives rise to serious anxieties.

The book’s basic thesis is that higher education and advanced technology
accelerate the selection of genes for learning disorders, ADHD, addictive and
disruptive behaviour. This theory is supported by three premises: first, that
disruptive and criminal behaviour in ‘developed’ countries is increasing
rapidly – although no meaningful comparison with the rates of increase of such
behaviour in less developed nations is presented. Second, that such disruptive
behaviour has a large genetic component, and that the underlying genetic aspects
of these antisocial behaviours are similar. Third, that the increasing emphasis
on education in developed countries is selecting for genes which contribute to
these behaviours – because antisocial individuals do not take up higher
education but instead start their families early; thus shortening the generation
time and increasing the pool of undesirable behavioral genes.

The arguments are developed in this book with an alarming lack of scientific
accuracy and satisfactory supporting evidence. In the first of the book’s six
parts, the author presents evidence that learning, disruptive, addictive, and
other behavioural disorders are increasing in frequency in developed countries.
Mental illnesses, too, the author asserts are on the increase in these
countries, and at an earlier age of onset. However, the author fails to
appreciate that early age at onset of mental illnesses, and associated suicide,
is likely to reduce the reproductive capacity of affected individuals! Other
undesirable characteristics on the increase since 1910 are said to be autism,
Tourette syndrome, ADHD, conduct disorder and sudden infant death syndrome.

Average IQ level is decreasing, the author states, and individuals with low
IQs tend to have larger families than those with higher IQs. This question has
been addressed in the past, again by LS Penrose, who noted that individuals with
IQs at the lowest end of the normal distribution tend to have low fertility; and
that offspring of individuals with intelligence below the average tend to have
IQs towards the centre of the normal distribution. A premise pivotal to this
argument is that antisocial behaviour is more prevalent among those individuals
with lower IQs and educational achievements. However, no satisfactory evidence
is produced for this. The author also attempts to present evidence that
antisocial individuals have their families earlier than their more law-abiding
counterparts. This is an extremely complex issue treated in such a simplistic
manner that it lacks any credibility; presupposing as it does that antisocial
individuals do not take part in higher education. In addition, the suggestion
that this shortened generation time in so-called antisocial groups has been
sufficient to account for the very significant changes shown in the prevalence
of antisocial behaviour since the 1930s hardly seems possible unless there has
been a vast difference in the reproductive behaviour of these groups. By
contrast, the author propounds the theory that college graduates have their
children at a later age than average. Again, no clear evidence is presented to
show that individuals with supposedly above-average intelligence have low levels
of antisocial behaviours.

The author’s suggestion that there is a similar genetic basis for all the
undesirable behavioural traits he considers is, once again, badly argued and
moreover very unlikely to be true. Many of the behavioural disorders under
consideration are not disease entities, but symptom complexes, and likely to be
of multifactorial aetiology: Data is presented to show that the prevalence of
the TaqA1 allele of the Dopamine D2 receptor gene is more common in individuals
with a range of ‘undesirable’ behaviour traits, including gambling and
substance abuse (up to 60% as compared to 30% in individuals without such
traits). This evidence is presented in a scientifically unaccepted way, which
includes graphs without standard errors, and without data about the ethnic
origin of the individuals studied, a factor which will influence the prevalence
of such polymorphisms. Inclusion of a correlation between the polymorphism and
body weight compounds the irrationality of his argument.

Finally, various suggestions are made as to how to remedy the perceived
situation. These include encouraging college graduates to have their children
earlier, while promoting the voluntary limitation of families by socially
maladjusted individuals. Such a programme is exactly analogous to that proposed
by the eugenists and would involve making decisions as to the desirability of
certain individuals to procreate. Who is to make such judgements? Practical ‘positive
eugenics’ requires an understanding of the underlying mechanisms of
inheritance of so-called desirable and undesirable traits. Breeding for
individuals with high intelligence or non-aggressive or disruptive behaviour
might result in a population lacking in other, more advantageous,
characteristics such as strength, originality, enthusiasm, health, and good
looks! In fact, if undesirable qualities are the result of recessive genes in
homozygotes, limiting the families of such individuals would not have a
significant effect on the frequency of the disorder. In breeding experiments it
is found that there is phenotypic advantage in being heterozygous for certain
genes (‘heterozygous vigour’). The majority of the behavioural
characteristics discussed in this book are likely to be polygenic or
multifactorial so that manipulating the numbers of offspring of individuals with
such characteristics may not have a significant effect. It is mainly in the rare
case of a dominantly inherited trait where limitation of the number of offspring
of an affected individual is likely to have a direct influence on the incidence
of the trait in later generations.

Lumping together a large number of behavioural characteristics and suggesting
that they have the same genetic aetiology is absurd, and the assumption that
antisocial behaviour is uncommon in the highly educated is alarming. The
possibility that the alleged rise in the frequency of antisocial behaviour may
be due to environmental influences is discounted in this book, despite abundant
evidence for this. This book is an apocalyptic, irrational, and emotional
treatise which opens up scientifically unsound issues that have already been
formally buried. I deplore its publication.

Here are other examples of how this sort of eugenics argument is applied by
others:

TS implicated in the biological roots of criminal behavior
with Comings' work

(Just a note: this website was
designed for newcomers to Tourette's syndrome, to be read through in page order.
You can browse the pages in the order you desire, but if you're new to Tourette
syndrome,
you may get a better overview by reading through the pages in order, by clicking
on the Next Page links throughout.)